TREASURY

Counter-Terrorism Asset Freezing Regime

David Gauke: Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (“TAFA 2010”), the Treasury is required to report to Parliament, quarterly, on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
	This is the 14th report under the Act and it covers the period from 1 April 2014 to 30 April 2014. This report
	also covers the UK implementation of the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU. Under the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011. Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
	Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown, by name, of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
	The following table sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter ending 30 June 2014:
	
		
			  TAFA 2010 EU Reg (EC) 2580/2001 Al-Qaeda Regime UNSCR1989 
			 Assets frozen (as at 30/06/2014) £101,000 £11,0001 £58,0002 
			 Number of accounts frozen in UK (at 30/06/14) 46 10 24 
			 New accounts frozen (during Q2 2014) 6 0 0 
			 Accounts unfrozen (during Q2 2014) 0 0 0 
			 Number of designations (at 30/06/14) 30 363 280 
			 (i) New designations (during Q2 2014) 1 0 6 
			 (ii) Delistings (during Q2 2014) 0 0 5 
			 (iii) Individuals in custody in UK (at 30/06/2014) 4 0 0 
			 (iv) Individuals in UK, not in custody (at 30/06/2014) 4 0 3 
			 (v) Individuals overseas (at 30/06/2014) 14 11 211 
			 (vi) Groups 8 (0 in UK) 25 (1 in UK) 66 
			 Individuals by nationality (i) UK Nationals4 (ii) Non UK Nationals 7 8 14 n/a n/a 
			 Renewal of designation (during Q2 2014) 1 n/a n/a 
			 General Licences (i) Issued in Q2 (ii) Amended (iii) Revoked (i) 0 (ii) 0 (iii) 0 
			 Specific Licences:    
			 (i) Issued in Q2 (ii) Amended (iii) Expired (iv) Refused 10 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 
			 1This does not duplicate funds frozen under TAFA. 2This figure reflects the most up-to-date account balances available and includes approximately $64,000 of funds frozen in the UK. This has been converted using exchange rates as of 30/06/2014. 3This figure is based on ex-designations where the UK freeze forms the prior competent authority decision for the EU freeze. 4Based on information held by the Treasury, some of these individuals hold dual nationality. 
		
	
	Legal Proceedings
	1. The damages claim brought by Gulam Mastafa against a number of Government Departments, including the Treasury, has been stayed behind another case.
	2. A judicial review was brought against the Department in relation to the question of whether certain designations should be generally publicised or only notified on a restricted basis. Due to the nature of these proceedings it is not possible to provide any further information.
	3. In the quarter to 30 June 2014, no criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of breaches of asset freezes made under TAFA 2010 or under the Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011, though we have worked closely with the police and CPS on a number of investigations that may result in prosecution. Additionally, one individual was cautioned during the quarter for breach of restrictions in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 that apply to designated persons.
	Annex A—Designated persons under TAFA 2010 by name5
	Individuals
	1. Hamed Abdollahi
	2. Bilal Talal Abdullah
	3. Imad Khalil Al-Alami
	4. Abdelkarim Hussein Al-Nasser
	5. Ibrahim Salih Al-Yacoub
	6. Manssor Arbabsiar
	7. Moazzam Begg
	8. Usama Hamdan
	9.Nur Idiris Hassan Nur
	10. Nabeel Hussain
	11. Hasan Izz-al-Din
	12. Mohammed Khaled
	13. Parviz Khan
	14. Musa Abu Marzouk
	15. Khalid Mishaal
	16. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
	17. Sultan Muhammad
	18. Abdul Reza Shahlai
	19. Ali Gholam Shakuri
	20. Qasem Soleimani
	21. A
	22. B
	Entities
	1. BASQUE FATHERLAND AND LIBERTY (ETA)
	2. EJERCITO DE LIBERACION NACIONAL (ELN)
	3. FUERZAS ARMADAS REVOLUCIONARIAS DE COLOMBIA (FARC)
	4. HIZBALLAH MILITARY WING, INCLUDING EXTERNAL SECURITY ORGANISATION
	5. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT
	6. POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE—GENERAL COMMAND (PFLP-GC)
	7. POPULAR FRONT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE (PFLP)
	8. SENDERO LUMINOSO (SL)
	5For full listing details please refer to: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-list-of-designated-persons-terrorism-and-terrorist-financing.
	Annex B—Persons designated by the EU under Council Regulation (EC)2580/20016
	Persons
	1. Hamed Abdollahi*
	2. Abdelkarim Hussein Al-Nasser*
	3. Ibrahim Salih Al Yacoub*
	4. Manssor Arbabsiar*
	5. Mohammed Bouyeri
	6. Sofiane Yacine Fahas
	7. Hasan Izz-Al-Din*
	8. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed*
	9. Abdul Reza Shahlai*
	10. Ali Gholam Shakuri*
	11. Qasem Soleimani*
	Groups and Entities
	1. Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)
	2. Al-Aqsa E.V.
	3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade
	4. Al-Takfir and Al-Hijra
	5. Babbar Khalsa
	6. Communist Party of the Philippines, including New People’s Army (NPA), Philippines
	7. Devrimci Halk Kurtulu Partisi-Cephesi—DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party)
	8. Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army)*
	9. Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)*
	10. Gama’a al-lslamiyya (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-lslamiyya) (Islamic Group—IG)
	11. Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem
	12. Hizballah Military Wing, including external security organisation
	13. Hizbul Mujahideen (HM)
	14. Hofstadgroep
	15. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development*
	16. International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
	17. Islami Büyük Dogu Akincilar Cephesi (IBDA-C) (Great Islamic Eastern Warriors Front)
	18. Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF)
	19. Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL)
	20. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
	21. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
	22. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)—General Command (PFLP-GC)*
	23. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—(PFLP)*
	24. Sendero Luminoso (SL) (Shining Path)*
	25. Teyrbazen Azadiya Kurdistan (TAK)
	6For full listing details please refer to: www.gov.uk.
	*EU listing rests on UK designation under TAFA 2010.

DEFENCE

Government Pipeline and Storage System

Philip Dunne: In 2013, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) included provisions in the Energy Act to enable sale of the Government pipeline and storage system (GPSS). During passage of the Bill, Government Ministers were clear that a final decision to sell the system had not been taken and was subject to further work to confirm the case for sale.
	Given these assurances it is appropriate for me to provide an update to the House. Work on the sale was carried out in parallel with the legislative process and has extended into this year. MOD and its advisers have paid particular attention to assessing the investment required to meet the stringent safety and environmental standards introduced in the wake of the 2005 Buncefield accident as well as identifying the risks and opportunities for the business in the civilian downstream oil sector. It remains the case that commercial customers account for the majority of the GPSS throughput. MOD undertook market testing earlier this year and considers there to be a significant level of interest in purchasing the GPSS.
	We have concluded that sale of the GPSS would allow Government to transfer the financial risks of operating in the downstream oil market to the private sector, while still preserving the GPSS’s military capability and ensuring that national resilience is not compromised.
	The Department will now begin the sale process by inviting expressions of interest. The sale will be publicised in the press and through the defence contracts bulletin.
	MOD intends to complete the sale in the current financial year. The GPSS clauses contained within the Energy Act will be enacted by a commencement order before sale completion.
	The Oil and Pipelines Agency which manages the GPSS on MOD’s behalf is today writing to key suppliers and customers informing them of the sale process.

EDUCATION

School Funding

David Laws: I am today announcing how we will allocate £390 million of additional schools funding to the least fairly funded local areas in England. This will ensure fairer funding of English schools.
	When I addressed the House in March on fairer schools funding, I confirmed the Government’s commitment to ensure that, across the country, schools have a fair funding allocation that equips them to provide a world-class education. Since then, we have consulted on a proposal to allocate additional funding to schools in the least fairly funded areas.
	The consultation has confirmed that there is an overwhelming consensus that the allocation of funding to local areas across England is unfair.
	The proposal we consulted on was as follows. First, we would protect all local authority budgets at the same cash level in 2015-16 as in 2014-15. After this, we would increase the budgets of the least fairly funded local areas by setting minimum funding levels that all areas should attract for their pupils and schools. Where a local area already attracted these minimum funding levels, we would not make any change to the amount of funding per pupil that it received for 2015-16. If a local area attracted less than these minimum funding levels for the pupils and schools in its area, we would increase its budget so that it met those levels.
	I have listened carefully to the views of hon. Members and considered over 570 responses to the consultation. I am confirming today that we will allocate extra money to the least fairly funded local areas using the approach we set out in our recent consultation. I have concluded that this is the fairest way of distributing the additional funding we have available. I am pleased to say that we are allocating £390 million additional funding— £40 million more than I announced in March.
	Sixty-nine local areas will attract additional funding. My announcement today means that, for example, Cambridgeshire—the lowest funded area in 2014-15— will now receive an additional £311 for every pupil. Northumberland will now receive an additional £307 for each of its pupils and Croydon an additional £278.
	Through the additional funding we are making available, every local area’s allocation of funding will reflect a minimum basic per pupil amount and minimum amounts reflecting other pupil and school characteristics. In every local area, this will mean for example that the most deprived pupils in primary schools will attract at least £4,454; in key stage 3 at least £5,820; and key stage 4 at least £6,372, and this will continue to be supplemented by further direct funding through the pupil premium.
	In the consultation we published in March this year, we gave an initial indication of how, under our proposal, additional funding might be allocated to local areas. We were clear that these indicative figures were calculated using the most recent data available at that time, and that we would use updated data for the final allocations. We were clear that this meant that the distribution of additional funding to local authorities would be different from the indicative allocations set out in the consultation.
	The additional funding that we will allocate to local authorities addresses the unfair distribution of mainstream schools funding. During the consultation I have heard the concern that we will not have a completely fair education funding system until we also reform the distribution of funding for pupils with high-cost special educational needs and for early years pupils. This will be our priority for reform during the next Parliament, alongside introducing a full national funding formula for schools.
	In the 69 local areas that will attract additional funding, schools forums will now be able to agree a local funding formula for 2015-16. Our intention is that schools in these areas should receive the full benefit of the additional funding we are making available: the local authority should not hold back the extra funding to pay for centrally provided services. However, I want to be clear that it is for local authorities, in consultation with their schools forum, to decide how they distribute this additional funding between the schools in their area. If it is the collective judgment of a schools forum that there is a better way of distributing funding locally, then schools will not receive a budget that reflects each of the minimum funding levels directly.
	Today’s announcement of an additional £390 million increase in funding will make a real difference on the ground in the least fairly funded local areas, without creating instability and uncertainty in other local areas. We remain committed to taking the next vital steps towards fully fair funding once long-term spending plans are in place after the next spending review.
	I will place copies of the documents I have published today in the House Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Government Wine Cellar

Mark Simmonds: I have today placed a copy of the annual statement on the Government wine cellar for the financial year 2013-14 in the Libraries of both Houses.
	Following the outcome of the review of the Government hospitality wine cellar, this third annual statement continues our commitment that there would be annual statements to Parliament on the use of the wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money. The wine cellar is now self-funding through the sale of some high-value stock and payments made by other Government Departments to Government hospitality.
	The report notes that:
	Sales of stock amounted to £56,000 (in comparison to £63,300 in FY 2012-13);
	Further funds from other Government Departments added £16,762 to the overall receipts (a slight decrease in comparison to 2012-13);
	Purchases amounted to £50,054 (in comparison to £45,866 in 2011-12);
	For the second time the highest consumption level by volume was of English wine, at 48% of the total (in comparison to 49% in 2012-13); and
	Consumption dropped in 2013-14 by around 13.5%.

International Justice (UK Support and Funding)

Mark Simmonds: I am pleased to provide Parliament with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual account of Government support for the principles and institutions of international justice in 2013-14, and our plans for funding them in the year ahead. Today is international justice day, a particularly appropriate time to focus on this vital area of work.
	The UK’s support for international justice is crucial to our foreign policy. International justice is essential for ensuring that perpetrators of atrocities are held to account for their actions, and that victims see justice done. It makes a valuable contribution to addressing the underlying causes of conflict, helping victims of atrocities and their communities come to terms with the past, and deterring those who might otherwise commit such violations in the future. The UK has continued to support the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the international tribunals to tackle impunity for crimes such as genocide, mass killing, using sexual violence as a weapon of war, and use of child soldiers. This work helps to strengthen the rules-based international system and makes a contribution towards building a safer more secure world.
	For calendar year 2013 we provided assessed contributions of £7.5 million to the International Criminal Court, £4.9 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, £3.5 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and £l million to the Residual Mechanism which will take on the essential functions of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals when they close. In addition, for the financial year 2013-14 we made voluntary contributions of £920,000 to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, £100,000 to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, and £l million to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The UK also contributed £1.3 million in total to the International Criminal Court trust fund for victims, earmarked for projects which support survivors of acts of sexual violence committed in conflict. This complemented wider UK work to shatter the culture of impunity for perpetrators of crimes of sexual violence in conflict through the preventing sexual violence initiative and the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict.
	In November 2013 Charles Taylor, sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), was transferred to the UK at the request of the court. Mr Taylor is now serving his sentence in a UK prison.
	As a state party to the International Criminal Court, a member of the United Nations Security Council which oversees the Rwanda and former Yugoslavia tribunals, and a member of the management bodies for the Sierra
	Leone and Cambodia courts and the Lebanon tribunal, we engaged actively throughout the year to ensure these institutions were run effectively and efficiently.
	The coming year will see a great deal of activity on international justice. The International Criminal Court will continue its investigations in eight situation countries: to date 21 cases have been brought before the Court. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda will close with its remaining functions transferring to the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia will deliver a verdict in the first phase of the trial of the most senior surviving members of the Khmer Rouge. And the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone will continue to uphold the legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
	The UK will continue to support these institutions and make contributions to them over the next 12 months. We will continue to encourage other states to contribute to these courts and tribunals in order to give them more financial security through a broader donor base. And we will continue to ensure they deliver value for money by scrutinising budgets and making sure they make the best use of available resources.

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

David Lidington: I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 22 July and the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 23 July. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the GAC will be chaired by the Italian presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.
	Foreign Affairs Council
	Introductory remarks
	Baroness Ashton is expected to cover the floods in the western Balkans, and the outcome of the 16 July donor conference. She is also expected to update Ministers on relations between Serbia and Kosovo. I do not expect substantive discussion on either item.
	Ukraine
	Ministers will have a substantive discussion on the situation in Ukraine. I will use this opportunity to update Ministers on the outcomes of my recent visit. I will seek to ensure that the Foreign Affairs Council will adopt the Council decision establishing the EU advisory mission for civilian security sector reform in Ukraine. Adoption would be an important signal of ongoing EU support for Ukraine’s reform trajectory. I will also stress the need to continue to urge Russia to use its influence with the separatists to de-escalate, and to cut the flow of weapons. I will draw attention to the conclusions of the high-level meeting on Ukraine to discuss donor co-ordination and highlight the need to encourage Ukraine to do more to demonstrate commitment and progress on economic reforms.
	The UK will be pushing for Council conclusions that include tasking the European External Action Service to develop further options that keep the pressure on Russia in relation to its illegal annexation of Crimea; to encourage the Commission to pursue further trilateral talks with Russia and Ukraine regarding energy supplies;
	that support the measured approach being taken by the Ukrainian authorities to regain control of the east of the country; and that encourage all parties to engage with the dialogue process and work towards a sustainable peace in Ukraine.
	Iraq
	Ministers will discuss the situation in Iraq. While this has stabilised over recent weeks, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other armed groups remain in control of much of northern and western Iraq. I will emphasise the need for the swift formation of an inclusive Government, as the security response to ISIL will need to be underpinned by a political solution if there is to be a lasting resolution to the crisis. As part of that, I will call for member states to continue pressing all sides to remain engaged in the political process and come to an agreement on candidates for Speaker, President and Prime Minister. I will also encourage member states to consider how best to assist the Government of Iraq in the fight against terrorism, and how to tackle the threat of foreign fighters. The discussion may also cover ISIL’s presence in Syria and the impact that they are having there.
	Middle east peace process
	Ministers will discuss recent developments in the middle east peace process. The UK will want to ensure the EU sends a clear message expressing its concern at the recent escalation in violence in Gaza and Israel, and urging all sides to take steps to deescalate the situation and avoid any further civilian injuries and the loss of innocent life. Recent events reinforce the need to take steps towards a lasting peace.
	Iran
	Ministers will also discuss the Iran nuclear negotiations. The joint plan of action, the interim deal agreed by the E3+3 and Iran in November 2013 and implemented from January, expires just before the FAC, on 20 July. The E3+3 are currently working hard with Iran in Vienna to agree a deal. At the FAC, Ministers will discuss the outcome of the talks and any necessary follow-up action required by member states.
	General Affairs Council
	The General Affairs Council on 23 July is expected to focus on: the Italian presidency work programme; procedure to follow up on European Council conclusions; the Europe 2020 mid-term review; and Lithuania’s accession to the economic and monetary union.
	Italian presidency work programme
	The GAC is expected to take note of the Italian presidency programme, “Europe, a Fresh Start”, which was published on 2 July 2014. The UK and Italy share priorities on several aspects of the EU agenda, including: growth; jobs; competitiveness; better regulation; and foreign policy in the Mediterranean region. We welcome Italy’s initiatives to boost growth and investment, particularly their focus on strong manufacturing and service sectors; and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. We also share an interest in further growth-focused institutional reforms.
	European Council conclusions follow up
	The GAC performs an important role in ensuring that the actions mandated in European Council conclusions
	are properly implemented. The GAC is expected to discuss its conclusions follow-up role, and consider ways to improve this function in the future.
	Europe 2020 mid-term review
	The GAC will consider the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs. Discussions for the mid-term review are in early stages. The UK is developing its position but will be fully engaged with the review.
	Good progress has been made in improving the stability and integrity of the euro area and it is essential that the EU does not weaken its general commitment to fiscal sustainability.
	Accession of Lithuania to the economic and monetary union
	The GAC will adopt the legal acts enabling Lithuania to adopt the euro on 1 January 2015. This follows a recommendation of euro area member states at ECOFIN in June and endorsement of the Commission’s proposal at the June European Council. The Commission’s convergence report of 4 June 2014 assessed that Lithuania meets all the convergence criteria for adopting the euro.

HOME DEPARTMENT

British Citizenship Applications (War Crimes Screening)

James Brokenshire: The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013 enable me to subject applications from certain nationalities for British citizenship to more rigorous scrutiny than others for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with, the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
	The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by me for the purpose of the arrangements.
	I have now reviewed and approved this list in accordance with our commitment to do so annually. I am satisfied that the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.
	The arrangements will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis and will remain in force until revoked.

Forced Labour Convention

Karen Bradley: The forced labour convention (the convention) is one of eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO proposed supplementing the convention by agreeing a recommendation and a protocol on how ILO members should apply aspects of the convention.
	The European Commission proposed that a Council decision should be adopted to determine the position to be taken on behalf of the EU during negotiations on the recommendation. The Government, while supporting the implementation of the forced labour convention, did not agree that the EU had the competence to negotiate this recommendation on behalf of the member states, and did not agree that there was an appropriate legal base in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to allow the Council to agree a decision setting out a common position in relation to an international organisation of which the EU was not a member. The Government therefore decided not to opt in to the JHA provisions with the Council decision. A number of other member states supported the UK position and the Council decision was not adopted ahead of the ILO conference.
	The UK, along with other EU member states, supported both the protocol and the recommendation following negotiations at the International Labour Conference, and the ILO has subsequently adopted both instruments.

Forensic Science Regulator (Appointment)

Norman Baker: I am today announcing arrangements for the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator. Following an open competition adhering to the principles of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I have decided to appoint Dr Gillian Tully. Her three-year term of appointment will commence on 17 November 2014.
	The Forensic Science Regulator appointment has been filled by Mr Andrew Rennison who completes his term of office at the end of August. I should like to record the Government’s appreciation of Mr Rennison’s contribution in laying the foundations for the regulation of quality in forensic science in England and Wales.

JUSTICE

HMCTS Framework Document

Chris Grayling: On 28 March 2014 I announced plans for a programme of reform to deliver a more effective, efficient and high-performing courts and tribunals administration that will improve the services provided to the public at a significantly lower cost.
	Following this announcement, the Lord Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and I have agreed that the HMCTS board be reconstituted so that we can secure additional experience and expertise needed to provide robust oversight to the organisation during this ambitious period of change. In view of this, we have agreed some consequential amendments to the HMCTS framework document to allow for the addition of one extra non-executive director, and for the total number of executive directors to be increased for a specific period and specific purpose, on terms to be agreed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice after consultation with the chair of HMCTS.
	The amended HMCTS framework document will be laid in both Houses of Parliament today and copies will be available in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office.

Deaths of Service Personnel (Inquests)

Simon Hughes: Together with the Minister for the Armed Forces, with responsibility for defence personnel, welfare and veterans, I now make our latest joint statement on progress with inquests into the deaths of service personnel on active service overseas. On behalf of the Government and the nation we thank our armed forces for their immense courage, their unshakeable determination, and for their sacrifice. We especially remember the families of those who have laid down their lives for their country.
	In this statement we give information about the open investigations and inquests which the senior coroners for Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Swindon and other coroner areas in England and Wales are conducting. The information provided shows the position at 14 July 2014.
	We have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses containing information to supplement this statement, indicating the status of all cases and showing whether a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been or is to be held.
	Coroners, including the specially trained cadre of coroners whom we have mentioned in previous statements, continue to work with the Ministry of Defence’s defence inquests unit to make sure that investigations are progressed and completed as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Where appropriate, relevant investigations can now be held in Scotland under section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
	Once again we record our thanks to coroners and their staff, the Chief Coroner, visiting officers and to all those, professional and skilled volunteer alike, who help bereaved families to be at the centre of the investigation process.
	RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and, currently, RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, have been the main locations for repatriations of service personnel who have died overseas. Since October 2007 the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice have jointly made additional funding available to the senior coroners for those coroner areas. This helps them to take service personnel inquests forward in balance with their local caseloads.
	Current status of inquests
	Since our last statement a further six inquests have been concluded into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Afghanistan. In total there have been 610 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan or who have died in the UK of injuries sustained on active service. There has been no formal inquest into three deaths. Two of these deaths were taken into consideration at inquests into other deaths in the same incidents. In the third case it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry into the death of a serviceman who died from his injuries in Scotland, where he had made a partial recovery.
	Coroners’ investigations which have been opened
	Deaths in Afghanistan
	As at 14 July, 21 coroner investigations are open into the deaths of service personnel on operations.
	The senior coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon has retained six of the open investigations, and the senior coroner for Oxfordshire has retained nine. The remaining six coroner investigations are being conducted by senior coroners for areas closer to the next of kin. Six hearing dates have been listed—including one hearing listed for yesterday 16 July.
	Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
	There are no open coroner investigations in relation to service personnel who have returned home injured and have then died from their injuries.
	We will continue to inform the House of progress.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Disabled People's Right to Control

Mark Harper: The right to control pilot operated in seven areas of England between 12 December 2010 and 12 December 2013. The aims of the pilot were to bring together a number of different funding streams into a streamlined process that allowed disabled people choice and control over how funding for them was used to provide the care, support (including employment support) and equipment they needed; and to test the costs and benefits to public authorities.
	The Government remain committed to the principles of personalisation and of providing disabled people with greater choice and control over how the funding they are entitled to is used by them or on their behalf. While the evaluation of this pilot may not have resulted in any measurable impact on outcomes, it was popular with those individuals who exercised their right to control and they valued the greater flexibilities it gave them. It also acted as a catalyst to developing local relationships and partnerships.
	Since the right to control pilot began in 2010, developments in Government policy have increasingly recognised the importance of personalisation in the delivery of services. The Care Act 2014 enables greater choice and control for the individual in adult social care and also provides co-operation duties to support partnership working and the flexibility needed to maintain right to control style approaches at local level. We are in the process of introducing personalisation within the context of the disability and health employment strategy, to develop a more personalised approach to delivering employment support for disabled people.
	Taking these changes into consideration together with the evaluation findings of the right to control pilot the Government have decided not to roll out the right to control nationally.
	As required by the Welfare Reform Act 2009, a report on the operation of the pilot has been prepared, and I will place a copy of the report in the House Library.